Suchergebnisse

A general election has been aptly compared to an instantaneous photograph of a galloping horse. It is a static representation of a public opinion that is by its very essence perpetually changing, and a newly elected House of Commons has not yet met before it is in a sense out of date and no longer fully representative. Even if a general election photograph had permanent significance, it would be open to the criticism of inaccuracy at the time of taking. Readers of this Review are aware of the misleading character of the British electoral machine—of the fact that whenever more than two candidates contest a constituency, the one elected may very well represent but a fraction over a third of the electorate; so that election statistics show a serious discrepancy between the distribution of votes and the allocation of seats.On the eve of dissolution, the House of Commons comprised 400 Conservative, 162 Socialist, and 46 Liberal members, with seven Independents. The new House comprises 289 Socialists, 260 Conservatives, 59 Liberals, and seven Independents. This distribution of seats, we have said, does not accurately correspond to that of votes cast, since the Socialists polled 8,370,005 votes, the Conservatives 8,641,170, and the Liberals 5,295,308. The usual explanation of the discrepancy is that the Labor party had all the luck of the three-cornered contests in which a minority candidate was returned. This, however, happens to be false; that luck went to the Conservatives: of 313 successful "minority" candidates, 153 are Conservatives, 122 Socialists, and 38 Liberals; while of 291 seats held by a clear majority, Socialists have 166, Conservatives 105, and Liberals 20.